President Obama should APPOINT Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here's How.

I'm not interested in grousing over the lost election, or pointing fingers over whose fault it was.

But more far-reaching than identity politics, party loyalty, who's worse, Hillary or Trump, yada yada, the biggest stake in the 2016 election was the future of the Supreme Court.  1992's "It's the economy, Stupid!" morphed into "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!"

Bitch McConnell is now being praised for his shrewdness in not even allowing an up or down vote on Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court.  But maybe McConnell's sleazebaggery has backfired.  According to the Washington Post's interpretation of the appointments clause of the Constitution:

“The president 'shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.' Note that the president has two powers: the power to 'nominate' and the separate power to 'appoint.'  In between the nomination and the appointment, the president must seek the 'Advice and Consent of the Senate.' What does that mean, and what happens when the Senate does nothing? [bold/italics added]

In most respects, the meaning of the 'Advice and Consent' clause is obvious. The Senate can always grant or withhold consent by voting on the nominee. The narrower question, starkly presented by the Garland nomination, is what to make of things when the Senate simply fails to perform its constitutional duty.”

Or as The Rude Pundit said:   “It's like when a president refuses to act on a bill within ten days while Congress is in session. It becomes a law, no?”

I don't claim to have any sort of legal expertise, but I say go for it.